 On 28 March 2023, a formal letter landed on the desk of the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC). It was not anonymous. It was not ambiguous. It was not a rumour. It came on the official letterhead of the Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji, signed by its Executive Director, and it carried a message that should have triggered immediate regulatory action. Pacific Polytechnic Limited no longer had the legal right to operate from Sanatan-owned premises. The lease had been terminated on 15 February 2023. A 90-day eviction notice had been issued. Sanatan Fiji expressly disclaimed any responsibility for Pacific Polytech’s continued operations on its properties. In plain language: Pacific Polytech had lost its lawful campus. |    |
Under any credible regulatory system, that should have been the end of the matter, at least temporarily. Accreditation should have been reviewed. Enrolments frozen. Grants suspended. Students protected. Instead, nothing happened. Or worse: things continued as if the letter never existed.
This is not a technical oversight. It is a textbook case of regulatory failure.
A letter that changed everything - on paper
Approved premises are not a minor box-ticking requirement for tertiary institutions. They are foundational. Without lawful occupation of approved campuses, an institution cannot lawfully deliver accredited programmes. That is not a discretionary matter. It is a condition of registration.
The Sanatan letter explicitly notified FHEC that Pacific Polytech’s agreement to use the Nabua and Lautoka campuses had been terminated, effective 15 February 2023, with eviction to follow in May. From that moment, Pacific Polytech’s continued operation at those locations was legally precarious at best and unlawful at worst.
The letter was not written to Pacific Polytech. It was written directly to the regulator. That matters. Once FHEC was notified, the Commission acquired actual knowledge. From that point on, inaction was no longer ignorance. It was acquiescence.
What should have happened but did not
Upon receiving the letter, FHEC should have immediately required Pacific Polytech to demonstrate one of two things: either that the termination notice was invalid, or that it had secured alternative, approved premises. Failing that, FHEC should have suspended programme delivery pending compliance.
That is standard regulatory practice. It exists to protect students, public funds, and the integrity of the accreditation system. None of it appears to have been done.
There is no public record of an urgent compliance audit. No show-cause notice. No suspension of enrolments. No warning to students. No notification to funding agencies. Silence.
If Pacific Polytech continued teaching after May 2023 without approved premises, as appears to be the case, then it did so in breach of core accreditation conditions. That breach was known to the regulator.
The money question no one wants to answer
The most serious issue is not merely accreditation. It is money.
Public grants, TVET funding, skills development subsidies, all of these depend on an institution being compliant and properly registered. Once FHEC was notified that Pacific Polytech had lost its lawful campus, any further public funding should have been immediately suspended pending verification.
If grants continued to flow after March 2023, the question is unavoidable: on what legal basis?
Public funds paid to a non-compliant institution are not just an administrative problem. They may constitute unlawful expenditure. Officials who authorised payments with knowledge of non-compliance may face scrutiny not only from the Auditor-General but potentially from anti-corruption authorities, depending on what they knew and when.
The Sanatan letter creates a documentary trail that is difficult to wish away. It fixes a date. It fixes knowledge. It fixes responsibility.
Students caught in the middle
Lost in the bureaucratic evasions are the students. If Pacific Polytech continued enrolling students or delivering programmes after losing its lawful premises, those students were entitled to know. They were entitled to clarity about accreditation, recognition, and the legitimacy of their qualifications.
If they were not told - if enrolments continued under the assumption of full compliance - then the issue becomes one of misrepresentation. Students may have paid fees, taken loans, or committed years of their lives based on assurances that were no longer true.
Regulators exist to prevent precisely this kind of harm. When regulators fail, students pay the price.
Regulatory failure, not administrative error
This is not a case of a missing form or a delayed inspection. It is a case where a regulator was explicitly told that a core condition of accreditation no longer existed, and appears to have done nothing.
If FHEC did act, it should produce the paper trail: the notices, the audits, the decisions, the funding suspensions. If it did not act, the public is entitled to ask why. Was there political pressure? Institutional favouritism? Simple incompetence? Or something worse?
What cannot be credibly claimed is ignorance.
The broader accountability question
The Pacific Polytech episode exposes a deeper problem in Fiji’s tertiary education oversight: enforcement without fear or favour. Rules that exist only on paper are worse than no rules at all. They create the illusion of regulation while enabling abuse.
A regulator that receives a termination notice and allows business as usual is not regulating. It is enabling.
The Sanatan letter should have triggered a reckoning. Instead, it was buried.
Now it deserves daylight.
The questions are straightforward and demand answers: Did Pacific Polytech continue operating after losing its lawful premises? Did it continue receiving public funds? Did the regulator know? And if so, who decided to look the other way?
Until those questions are answered, this is not just a story about one institution. It is a story about the integrity, or lack of it, of Fiji’s regulatory state.
NEXT INSTALMENT: When Power Overeached the Law: Why former Finance Minister Biman Prasad Had No Business Intervening in a Private Eviction Dispute
This is not a technical oversight. It is a textbook case of regulatory failure.
A letter that changed everything - on paper
Approved premises are not a minor box-ticking requirement for tertiary institutions. They are foundational. Without lawful occupation of approved campuses, an institution cannot lawfully deliver accredited programmes. That is not a discretionary matter. It is a condition of registration.
The Sanatan letter explicitly notified FHEC that Pacific Polytech’s agreement to use the Nabua and Lautoka campuses had been terminated, effective 15 February 2023, with eviction to follow in May. From that moment, Pacific Polytech’s continued operation at those locations was legally precarious at best and unlawful at worst.
The letter was not written to Pacific Polytech. It was written directly to the regulator. That matters. Once FHEC was notified, the Commission acquired actual knowledge. From that point on, inaction was no longer ignorance. It was acquiescence.
What should have happened but did not
Upon receiving the letter, FHEC should have immediately required Pacific Polytech to demonstrate one of two things: either that the termination notice was invalid, or that it had secured alternative, approved premises. Failing that, FHEC should have suspended programme delivery pending compliance.
That is standard regulatory practice. It exists to protect students, public funds, and the integrity of the accreditation system. None of it appears to have been done.
There is no public record of an urgent compliance audit. No show-cause notice. No suspension of enrolments. No warning to students. No notification to funding agencies. Silence.
If Pacific Polytech continued teaching after May 2023 without approved premises, as appears to be the case, then it did so in breach of core accreditation conditions. That breach was known to the regulator.
The money question no one wants to answer
The most serious issue is not merely accreditation. It is money.
Public grants, TVET funding, skills development subsidies, all of these depend on an institution being compliant and properly registered. Once FHEC was notified that Pacific Polytech had lost its lawful campus, any further public funding should have been immediately suspended pending verification.
If grants continued to flow after March 2023, the question is unavoidable: on what legal basis?
Public funds paid to a non-compliant institution are not just an administrative problem. They may constitute unlawful expenditure. Officials who authorised payments with knowledge of non-compliance may face scrutiny not only from the Auditor-General but potentially from anti-corruption authorities, depending on what they knew and when.
The Sanatan letter creates a documentary trail that is difficult to wish away. It fixes a date. It fixes knowledge. It fixes responsibility.
Students caught in the middle
Lost in the bureaucratic evasions are the students. If Pacific Polytech continued enrolling students or delivering programmes after losing its lawful premises, those students were entitled to know. They were entitled to clarity about accreditation, recognition, and the legitimacy of their qualifications.
If they were not told - if enrolments continued under the assumption of full compliance - then the issue becomes one of misrepresentation. Students may have paid fees, taken loans, or committed years of their lives based on assurances that were no longer true.
Regulators exist to prevent precisely this kind of harm. When regulators fail, students pay the price.
Regulatory failure, not administrative error
This is not a case of a missing form or a delayed inspection. It is a case where a regulator was explicitly told that a core condition of accreditation no longer existed, and appears to have done nothing.
If FHEC did act, it should produce the paper trail: the notices, the audits, the decisions, the funding suspensions. If it did not act, the public is entitled to ask why. Was there political pressure? Institutional favouritism? Simple incompetence? Or something worse?
What cannot be credibly claimed is ignorance.
The broader accountability question
The Pacific Polytech episode exposes a deeper problem in Fiji’s tertiary education oversight: enforcement without fear or favour. Rules that exist only on paper are worse than no rules at all. They create the illusion of regulation while enabling abuse.
A regulator that receives a termination notice and allows business as usual is not regulating. It is enabling.
The Sanatan letter should have triggered a reckoning. Instead, it was buried.
Now it deserves daylight.
The questions are straightforward and demand answers: Did Pacific Polytech continue operating after losing its lawful premises? Did it continue receiving public funds? Did the regulator know? And if so, who decided to look the other way?
Until those questions are answered, this is not just a story about one institution. It is a story about the integrity, or lack of it, of Fiji’s regulatory state.
NEXT INSTALMENT: When Power Overeached the Law: Why former Finance Minister Biman Prasad Had No Business Intervening in a Private Eviction Dispute
3 June 2023
Subject: Termination of Pacific Polytechnic Agreement with Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses
Dear Hon. Prime Minister,
Hope this email find you well. This email is in regard to the determination of the rental contract between Pacific Polytechnic (PPL) and Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses.
A 90-days termination notice was given to PPL on 15th February 2023. Sanatan Fiji has given this campuses to PPL on rental for the operation of technical college. PPL was supposed to vacate the premises before 15th May 2023, however they failed to. Reminders were sent to PPL for vacant possession and payment of rental arrears during this 90 day period (letter attached to this email). A notification letter was also given to Fiji Higher Education Commission (letter attached).
16th /17th May Sanatan Fiji had requested PPL to give vacant possession of properties however, PPL refused to do so. Sanatan Fiji tried to negotiate with PPL but there was no positive response.
Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha Fiji is faith based organization, we have tried other methods to resolve these issue, but were unsuccessful.
We are left with the last resort to continue with the legal action against PPL/filing of court case.
PPL owes Sanatan Fiji a total of $16000.00 (FJD) for rental arrears. We wish to inform you that Sanatan Fiji is not liable for any business being conducted on our Nabua and Lautoka premises.
This is because a fair 90 day notice was given to PPL to sort out their business. We are humbly requesting you to assist us in the dilemma.
Hope our request is accepted.
Your faithfully
National President
Dhirendra Nand
Sanatan Fiji
Subject: Termination of Pacific Polytechnic Agreement with Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses
Dear Hon. Prime Minister,
Hope this email find you well. This email is in regard to the determination of the rental contract between Pacific Polytechnic (PPL) and Sanatan Fiji for Lautoka and Nabua Campuses.
A 90-days termination notice was given to PPL on 15th February 2023. Sanatan Fiji has given this campuses to PPL on rental for the operation of technical college. PPL was supposed to vacate the premises before 15th May 2023, however they failed to. Reminders were sent to PPL for vacant possession and payment of rental arrears during this 90 day period (letter attached to this email). A notification letter was also given to Fiji Higher Education Commission (letter attached).
16th /17th May Sanatan Fiji had requested PPL to give vacant possession of properties however, PPL refused to do so. Sanatan Fiji tried to negotiate with PPL but there was no positive response.
Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha Fiji is faith based organization, we have tried other methods to resolve these issue, but were unsuccessful.
We are left with the last resort to continue with the legal action against PPL/filing of court case.
PPL owes Sanatan Fiji a total of $16000.00 (FJD) for rental arrears. We wish to inform you that Sanatan Fiji is not liable for any business being conducted on our Nabua and Lautoka premises.
This is because a fair 90 day notice was given to PPL to sort out their business. We are humbly requesting you to assist us in the dilemma.
Hope our request is accepted.
Your faithfully
National President
Dhirendra Nand
Sanatan Fiji
